- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Mangat Ram v. State Of Haryana .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant was one of the accused in Criminal Appeal No. 592-SB of 1997 before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. On 3-5-2007 the matter appeared on the High Court’s daily board as “motion petitions,” but it was nevertheless taken up for final hearing. The Deputy Advocate General for the State of Haryana was present, and the High Court appointed Mrs. Harpreet Kaur Dhillon as amicus curiae for the accused. On the same day the High Court pronounced a short order: “Heard. Dismissed, reasons to follow.” No reasoned judgment was subsequently released. The appellant challenged that dismissal before the Supreme Court. On 30-11-2007 the Supreme Court issued notice on the special-leave petition and on the bail application, specifically asking why the petition should not be disposed of at that stage. The present opinion resolves that special-leave petition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court could validly dismiss the criminal appeal by a bare order stating “Dismissed, reasons to follow” without recording its reasons.
- Whether, pending the remand, the appellant should be enlarged on bail.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The case was listed only as a “motion petition” and not for regular final hearing, yet it was summarily dismissed.
- The High Court’s dismissal without recorded reasons violates the settled requirement that courts must provide reasons for their decisions.
- The appellant had remained on bail throughout the High Court proceedings and should therefore be granted bail by the Supreme Court while the matter is remitted.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent’s legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State of Punjab v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi (1984) 1 SCC 596 | Courts, especially those subject to appellate review, should not pronounce final orders without a reasoned judgment. | Quoted extensively to illustrate the difficulties created when High Courts issue unreasoned orders and to emphasise the need for immediate reasoning. |
| State of Punjab v. Surinder Kumar (1992) 1 SCC 489 | Distinction between the Supreme Court (whose orders are final) and other courts; the latter must assign reasons to facilitate appellate scrutiny. | Cited to reinforce that High Courts, unlike the Supreme Court, are obliged to record reasons because their orders are appealable. |
| Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004) 4 SCC 158 | Disapproval of High Court practice of dismissing matters with “reasons to follow.” | Relied on to show consistent condemnation of unreasoned dismissals and to underline that such practice should not grow beyond “its present infancy.” |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s approach contravened long-standing jurisprudence requiring courts to give reasons for their decisions. Unreasoned orders:
- Prevent the aggrieved party from challenging specific findings as non-existent, extraneous, or irrelevant.
- Deny the successful party an opportunity to defend the rationale underlying the decision.
- Hinder the superior court’s ability to assess the correctness of the lower court’s reasoning.
By relying on Jagdev Singh Talwandi, Surinder Kumar, and Zahira Habibulla, the Court reiterated that only the Supreme Court—whose judgments are final—may occasionally issue brief orders, and even then only in rare circumstances. Since High Court orders are appealable, the practice is impermissible for them. Consequently, the High Court’s dismissal without reasons was legally unsustainable. Regarding bail, the Supreme Court declined to grant it directly because the matter was being remitted, but granted the appellant liberty to renew the bail request before the High Court.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; High Court order set aside; matter remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law after hearing the parties.
Direct Implications: The High Court must rehear Criminal Appeal No. 592-SB of 1997 and render a reasoned judgment. The appellant may apply for bail before the High Court, which must decide that request on its merits.
Broader Implications: The decision reinforces the principle that all courts subordinate to the Supreme Court must issue reasoned orders, discouraging the growing but “not very desirable” practice of disposing of cases with unreasoned, summary orders.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. On 30-11-2007 when the matter was placed for admission hearing, this Court passed the following order:
“Delay condoned.
Issue notice on the special leave petition as on the application for bail. Notice will state as to why the special leave petition should not be disposed of at this stage.”
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on 3-5-2007, Criminal Appeal No. 592-SB of 1997 was placed on the daily board of the High Court showing them to be “motion petitions”. It was, therefore, submitted that the case was not placed for regular final hearing. It was, however, taken up for final hearing. One Mrs Harpreet Kaur Dhillon, Advocate was appointed as amicus curiae for the accused who was heard and the matter was disposed of. The order which was passed by the High Court reads as under:
“Present: Mrs Ritu Punj, DAG, Haryana
Mrs Harpreet Kaur Dhillon, Advocate is appointed as amicus curiae.
Heard.
Dismissed, reasons to follow.”
(emphasis supplied)
4. From the above order, passed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 592-SB of 1997, it was submitted by the learned counsel that Deputy Advocate General for the State of Haryana was present. For the accused, Mrs Harpreet Kaur Dhillon, Advocate was appointed as amicus curiae on that date. On the same day, the matter was dismissed and the High Court stated “Dismissed, reasons to follow.”
5. In our opinion, the learned counsel for the appellant is right in submitting that the High Court ought not to have disposed of the appeal without recording reasons. This Court has deprecated the practice of disposing of matters without recording reasons in support of such decision. It has been insisted that when the matter is decided by a court, reasons must be recorded in support of such decision. It is because the aggrieved party may make grievance in the superior court that the reasons recorded by the trial court were non-existent, extraneous, irrelevant, etc. The successful party, on the other hand, may support the reasons recorded by the court in his favour. Finally, the superior court may also consider whether reasons recorded by the court in support of the order passed by it were in consonance with law and whether interference is called for. If the final order is without any reason, several questions may arise and it will be difficult for the parties to the proceedings as well as the superior court to decide the matter one way or the other. This Court has, therefore, deprecated the practice of pronouncing final order without recording reasons in support of such order.
6. Before more than two decades, in State of Punjab v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi (1984) 1 SCC 596, the Court said:
“30. We would like to take this opportunity to point out that serious difficulties arise on account of the practice increasingly adopted by the High Courts, of pronouncing the final order without a reasoned judgment. It is desirable that the final order which the High Court intends to pass should not be announced until a reasoned judgment is ready for pronouncement. Suppose, for example, that a final order without a reasoned judgment is announced by the High Court that a house shall be demolished, or that the custody of a child shall be handed over to one parent as against the other, or that a person accused of a serious charge is acquitted, or that a statute is unconstitutional or, as in the instant case, that a detenu be released from detention. If the object of passing such orders is to ensure speedy compliance with them, that object is more often defeated by the aggrieved party filing a special leave petition in this Court against the order passed by the High Court. That places this Court in a predicament because, without the benefit of the reasoning of the High Court, it is difficult for this Court to allow the bare order to be implemented. The result inevitably is that the operation of the order passed by the High Court has to be stayed pending delivery of the reasoned judgment.”
7. Discussing the position of this Court on passing final orders without recording reasons in support of such orders, this Court stated: (Jagdev Singh Talwandi case (1984) 1 SCC 596)
“31. It may be thought that such orders are passed by this Court and therefore there is no reason why the High Courts should not do the same. We would like to point out respectfully that the orders passed by this Court are final and no appeal lies against them. The Supreme Court is the final court in the hierarchy of our courts. Besides, orders without a reasoned judgment are passed by this Court very rarely, under exceptional circumstances. Orders passed by the High Court are subject to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution and other provisions of the statutes concerned. We thought it necessary to make these observations in order that a practice which is not very desirable and which achieves no useful purpose may not grow out of its present infancy.”
(emphasis supplied)
8. The principle was reiterated by this Court in State of Punjab v. Surinder Kumar (1992) 1 SCC 489, (1992) 19 ATC 345. Distinguishing the position of this Court and other courts, the Court stated:
“6. … On the question of the requirement to assign reasons for an order, a distinction has to be kept in mind between a court whose judgment is not subject to further appeal and other courts. One of the main reasons for disclosing and discussing the grounds in support of a judgment is to enable a higher court to examine the same in case of a challenge. It is, of course, desirable to assign reasons for every order or judgment, but the requirement is not imperative in the case of this Court. It is, therefore, futile to suggest that if this Court has issued an order which apparently seems to be similar to the impugned order, the High Court can also do so.”
(emphasis supplied)
9. In Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004) 4 SCC 158, the High Court, after hearing criminal appeal, directed its dismissal indicating that “reasons would follow”. When the matter reached this Court, the Court disapproved the approach adopted by the High Court observing that it did not see “perceivable reason for the hurry”. Referring to Jagdev Singh Talwandi (1984) 1 SCC 596 and observing that sometimes even this Court makes such order, the Court stated: (Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh case (2004) 4 SCC 158)
“82. It may be thought that such orders are passed by this Court and, therefore, there is no reason why the High Courts should not do the same. We would like to point out that the orders passed by this Court are final and no further appeal lies against them. The Supreme Court is the final court in the hierarchy of our courts. Orders passed by the High Court are subject to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution and other provisions of the statutes concerned. We thought it necessary to make these observations so that a practice which is not a very desirable one and which achieves no useful purpose may not grow out of and beyond its present infancy.”
(emphasis supplied)
10. In our considered opinion, it would be appropriate and desirable if all courts including the High Courts keep in mind the above principles laid down by this Court and pass final orders only after recording reasons in support of such orders.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant states that before the High Court passed the order challenged in the present appeal, the appellant-accused had throughout remained on bail. He, therefore, submitted that this Court may pass an appropriate order enlarging the appellant on bail on such terms and conditions as this Court deems fit.
12. In our opinion, however, it would not be appropriate to pass such order when we are remitting the matter to the High Court. We may, however, grant liberty to the appellant to make such prayer before the High Court. Let the High Court consider the same on its own merits and pass an appropriate order.
13. The appeal is accordingly allowed with aforesaid observations. The order of the High Court is set aside. The matter is remitted to the High Court to be decided in accordance with law after hearing the parties.
14. Before parting with the matter, we may clarify that we have not entered into merits of the matter and we may not be understood to have expressed any opinion one way or the other on the issues in the case. The High Court will decide the appeal on its own merits.
15. Ordered accordingly.
Alert